Nautical Accessory, Utility Attachment for Inflatable Boat.
Prior Art attachments intended to improve the seaworthiness of inflatable boats have been narrow in scope, limited in their practical utility, poorly constructed or technical, complex and expensive and, for the most part, have failed to significantly increase the seaworthiness of inflatables.
We use the term xe2x80x9cAttachmentxe2x80x9d or xe2x80x9cAccessoryxe2x80x9d to refer to an object or device that is not essential in itself but that adds to the beauty, convience, utility or effectiveness of something else.
The invention disclosed here is a fairly inexpensive, simple piece of equipment, with no moving parts which is optional for inflatable boats and was specifically designed for particular uses. When this attachment was connected to an inflatable, the results were a combination of beneficial effects which were both novel and anticipated and novel and unanticipated.
The review of the prior art will show that the combined effects or results that follow the hook-up or connection of this apparatus to inflatable boats have not been anticipated nor taught by the prior art.
Indeed, a review of the prior art repeatedly shows that those familiar with and skilled in the art have invented around but have not particularly pointed out nor distinctly claimed an attachment that significantly increases the seaworthiness and utility of inflatable boats or creates the combination of improvements this invention creates, when the attachment is connected to an inflatable.
This, of course, indicates that this invention is not obvious at all; further, the combination of results are novel in a variety of ways that are not duplicated and cannot be duplicated by the prior art.
The synergistic effect is more than the sum of the parts of having a hardbody boat on the one hand and an inflatable on the other; neither, by itself, creates this result. The effect is a hybred effect, more than the sum of it""s parts, crossing the worlds of higher profile hardbody boats with those of lower profile inflatables, when this attachment is connected to an inflatable.
Indeed, this attachment is well poised for commercial success since it fills a long felt need which has not been addressed by those skilled in the art. Further, it increses the value added at a lower cost than alternative attachments, if any.
The prior art repeatedly teaches and anticipates around this invention but is not on point; if this invention were obvious, the prior art would not teach around it. If those skilled in the Art had thought of this invention they would have invented it by now, therefore this invention must be nonobvious.
The evidence collected here repeatedly shows that the differences between Mr. Stewart""s invention and the prior art were not at all obvious and could not have been obvious to those skilled in the art at the time the prior art was made, otherwise the prior art would be more on point.
There are some rough and remote approximations to our invention that include a complete boat or an accessory for a boat but that teach or anticipate around the invention which is the subject of this application e.g. Hiller, U.S. Pat. No. 4,807,556; Garnier-Lock, U.S. Pat. No. 6,186,088 B1; Lewis, U.S. Pat. No. 5,070,807; Harding, U.S. Pat. No. 5,033,434.
With this attachment, we are claiming less not more than the prior art, but what we claim has greater utility not less utility than the prior art, when this attachment is placed on an inflatable. This applies primarily where the prior art claims an entire boat, not an accessory for a boat.
Where we review prior art accessories for inflatable boats, our invention provides suprising and unanticipated results not provided by prior art accessories. These unanticipated results include but are not limited to enhanced overall handeling, balance and performance, when the attachment is connected to the inflatable.
Though Hull et al (U.S. Pat. No. 6,233,677) discloses an inflatable watercraft with pontoons, a rigid deck and a cabin, it is an entire inflatable boat which they claim, as contrasted with an optional, surface accessory, which is the invention claimed by this applicant. We claim less not more; we claim an optional attachment for a boat, not the entire boat itself.
They claim xe2x80x9can adaptable, multipurpose boatxe2x80x9d, we claim xe2x80x9can attachment for increasing seaworthiness and utility of inflatable boatsxe2x80x9d. The focus of the Hull invention is an embedded hull and the xe2x80x9cdeckxe2x80x9d they refer to is located on what is normally considered the xe2x80x9cbridgexe2x80x9d of a boat, not the horizontal perimeter circumference of the inflatable which is the location of the xe2x80x9cdeckxe2x80x9d on the accessory described by our invention.
Most prior art described here is using the term xe2x80x9cdeckxe2x80x9d to refer to what is actually the xe2x80x9cbridgexe2x80x9d area of a boat; we use the term xe2x80x9cdeckxe2x80x9d to refer to a horizontal perimeter plank area which lies at the outermost perimerimeter around the horizontal circumference of a boat, lying on a raised area above the bridge. Not all boats have a deck as we described here; for example boats that are extremely aerodynamic in shape do not have such a deck area, though there may be a lip or ridge there not intended as a deck area. See also Simpkins (U.S. Pat. No. 5,452,687) at #14 for support platform and Garnier-Lock (U.S. Pat. No. 6,186,088 B1) for support base.
The xe2x80x9cdeckxe2x80x9d that Hull et al disclose is not equavilent to the horizontal perimeter plank area described by this applicant when referring to the accessory for inflatable boat. Hull et al do not distinctly claim this circumference perimeter plank area as part of the xe2x80x9cdeckxe2x80x9d area and their invention teaches away from this area and toward the xe2x80x9cbridgexe2x80x9d location with a primary focus on the recessed, embedded hull construction.
Reymann et al (U.S. Pat. No. 4,745,860) like Hall et al disclose and claim an entire boat, not an accessory for a boat; they are claiming more, we are claiming less. Reymann discloses a hard body toy boat with a round balloon, not a seaworthy pontoon. There are no attachments or accessories which serve to enhance the practical utility of generic inflatable boats.
Reymann et al do not teach nor anticipate significant expanded practical utility applications for their invention, such as expanded usable space and load capacity, as does the Stewart invention. Though both inventions can be used for recreational purposes, these are not comparable inventions.
Simpkins (U.S. Pat. No. 5,452,678) discloses a top for a pontoon boat. He claims the whole boat, though the xe2x80x9cboat Topxe2x80x9d of his dependent claim is not disclosed as an independent xe2x80x9caccessoryxe2x80x9d. Given that this claim is dependent on the independent claim, he is still claiming an entire boat as his invention. Simpkins is claiming more, we are claiming less.
There is no discussion of this boat top being or intended to be particularily seaworthy, nor is there any indication that this boat top is designed to be an easily removeable, detachable or collapsable accessory such as the attachment we have here submitted for a patent.
Rather, the Simpkins claims indicate that this boat top is intended to be a permanent part of the pontoon boat. The Simpkins boat top is not a xe2x80x9cdeckxe2x80x9d area such as the perimeter runway which is particularily pointed out and distinctly claimed by this inventor. Nothing here teaches that this boat top is particularly seaworthy i.e. useful in rough ocean waters on the open sea.
Hull et al, Reymann et al and Simpkins individually and in combination anticipate around and teach away from the Stewart invention, in part, because they disclose as their primary, independent claims, an inflatable boat or pontoon boat as a whole, not an accessory for an inflatable boat.
Further, Reymann et al does not provide a perimeter circumference runway; rather, his disclosure provides a recess on the superstructure at #3 and #7 which is akin to the streamlined, aerodynamic boat refered to in paragraph 18 earlier, where a lip or a ridge can be seen but is not disclosed as a deck area.
This lip or ridge is located where Reymann""s superstructure connects to the lower portion of the boat. Again, Simpkins discloses a lip or ridge which functions as a support base (see also, Garner-Lock) for the hard top roof but is itself not part of the hard top roof nor is it claimed or disclosed as a perimerer runway.
Hediger (CH 651,793,A5) provides a flexible top, not a hard top, however this cover provides more protection than the Simpkins xe2x80x9cTopxe2x80x9d or xe2x80x9croofxe2x80x9d, though the Hediger invention is not particularily seaworthy, as is the Stewart invention.
The Ugen (U.S. Pat. No. 1,482,021) invention provides a built in cover for the protection of passengers on an inflatable boat; like the other inventions described above, the claim is for a complete boat not an accessory for an inflatable boat.
Woodland (U.S. Pat. No. 5,597,335) discloses a marine rescue vehicle, comprising a complete boat with high technology support equipment. This is evidently a complex and expensive boat whereas our invention is simple, has no electronic or moving parts and is relatively inexpensive.
Other inventions which teach complete boat and are relevant prior art include: inflatable boats which are designed to inflate automatically (Hemphill and Dale U.S. Pat. No. 6,178,911,B1; Shoaff, U.S. Pat. No. 5,800,225), A convertable, inflatable tent-like shelter which can be used on land or water (Odekirk, U.S. Pat. No. 4,766,918), a rigid inflatable boat, disclosed as a number of airfilled bladders attached to a rigid hull (Hiller, U.S. Pat. No. 4,807,556) and a boat cabin enclosure that pivots out and rests on the deck of a hardbody boat (Benson and Kent, U.S. Pat. No. 5,964,173).
These are to name a few more inventions which teach complete boat, not accessory and which anticipate around and away from the invention we have disclosed.
Patented attachments for inflatable boats developed by persons skilled in the art also repeatedly show that inventors have taught around and away from the accessory we claim as our invention, which is novel and nonobvious.
Pestel (U.S. Pat. No. 5,819,682) has invented an assembly for a mixed-hull inflatable boat which can be converted into a closed box. This assembly does not have the features that the Stewart invention has and storage capacity is its primary focus.
Sanburg (U.S. Pat. No. 4,671,203) provides a top for a boat which serves as a duck blind; Lewis (U.S. Pat. No. 5,070,807) provides a temporary canopy for a pontoon boat primarily comprising a soft top cover; Peterson (U.S. Pat. No. 5,564,357) discloses a protective cover for the protection of the inflatable boat itself and Lee (U.S. Pat. No. 5,507,244) discloses an accessory which allows for the mounting of seats on an inflatable boat.
These accessories or attachments teach around the concept of the invention we have developed, and they are not on point and do not anticipate the surprising and novel combination of results that our invention provides.
There is one invention which provides a semirigid surface which serves as a support base for an inflatable boat (Garnier-Locke, U.S. Pat. No. 6,186,088 B1) and a second invention which discloses a rigid deck for an inflatable boat (Harding, U.S. Pat. No. 5,088,434).
These two inventions provide a closer, perhaps the closest, descriptive approxamation to the invention which we have disclosed: they are accessories or attachments for inflatable boats and their purpose is, in part, to transform an otherwise soft and flexible surface into a rigid one with the result that more usable space is created (Harding) and accessories can be firmly attached (Garner-Lock).
The garner-Lock is a plate or pod upon which objects can be firmly affixed. If these plates or pods were placed throughout the outer horizontal perimeter of an inflatable, it is concievable that they would form a deck or perimeter runway; or if these plates or pods were wide and long that they could serve as a deck or runway for an inflatable boat.
The Garner-Lock invention claims that it is a support base upon which other accessories can be affixed; our invention, of course, also claims this.
One fundamental difference, though is that our invention provides a broader scope of applications and creates a unique combination of results not limited in scope by being a xe2x80x9cplanexe2x80x9d (a flat object) which Garner-Lock have invented. For example, Garner-Lock do not teach nor anticipate a bridge shelter or cabin or wheel house or collision protections, as we propose.
The harding invention (U.S. Pat. No. 5,088,434) is also primarily a planexe2x80x94a flat straight object, and suffers from the same fundamental differences as the garner-Lock invention when compared to our accessory attachment. Specifically, it does not teach nor anticipate a bridge shelter or cabin or wheel house or collision protections, as we propose.
Harding discloses his invention as an xe2x80x9cinflatable boat and a deck thereforexe2x80x9d; this is a rigid, removable xe2x80x9cDeckxe2x80x9d with a flexible bebow mechanism that also serves as a connecting joint for these elements which are place parallel on the xe2x80x9cBridgexe2x80x9d or floor area of the inflatable.
Harding refers to his invention as a deck for an inflatable boat; Our claims distinguish between a xe2x80x9cdeckxe2x80x9d (horizontal perimeter runway) and a xe2x80x9cBridgexe2x80x9d (the center most, flat, recessed area of the inflatable), each being located at different areas of the boat.
Hardings"" invention was not intended for and teaches away from the area we call a horizontal perimeter runway since there are no supporting mechanisms to hold this invention in place if it were intended to be located on the uppermost curvature surface of the pontoon.
Harding has disclosed floorboards for the bridge area; the Stewart invention has nothing to do with floor boards. It is, though, concievable that some of Harding""s floor boards could somehow be strapped on the upper curvature of the pontoon and function as a runway; however, this would be a far-fetched claim and would overreach any fair interpretation of what may have been anticipated by harding. (see also Hart, U.S. Pat. No. 4,807,555).
Nevertheless, the Garner-Lock and Harding inventions are fairly recent (1997 and 1990) and indicate a long standing need for an attachment which can transform a flexible, inflated surface into a rigid surface upon which objects can be firmly affixed.
These two inventions are more on point than other prior art that claim an entire boat as the invention; Indeed, the focus of the Garner-Lock and Harding attachments are much more along the lines of the concept we claim: an attachment for an inflatable upon which accessories can be affixed.
These two inventions, however, do not teach nor anticipate a bridge shelter (cabin) nor do they create the novel and surprising results that our invention has on the handeling, balance and performance of the inflatable, when the attachment is connected.
Consider placing a shell or camper on a pick-up truck; the truck is transformed into an R.V., recrational Vehicle with a shelter. Consider the effect that a simple bar or bridge on the rear of a car can have on the overall performance of the vehiclexe2x80x94we call these xe2x80x9cspoilersxe2x80x9d.
Likewise, the simple fact of having the accessory attachment we have invented, placed on an inflatable results in novel and unexpected results which go beyond the other practical applications for which the accessory was initially invented.
These are novel and unexpected results which have not been taught nor anticipated by persons skilled in the art. Prior inventions have taught around and have not been on point nor have they created the unique combination of results that our invention provides.
The disadvantages of the prior art include:
A) the lack of seaworthy attachments, accessories or equipment that serve as a horizintal perimeter runway capable of significantly increasing the usable space on inflatables while enhancing the overall handeling, balance and performance of an inflatable, when the attachment is connected to the inflatable.
B) The lack of seaworthy attachments, accessories or equipment that serve as a bridge shelter capable of significantly increasing the usable space on inflatables while enhancing the overall handeling, balance and performance of an inflatable, when the attachment is connected to the inflatable.
C) The lack of seaworthy attachments, accessories or equipment that have the novel result of combining desirable features of hardbody boats with desirable features of inflatables, when the attachment is connected to the inflatable.
D) The prior art teaches either a complete boat as the invention or accessory attachments, neither of which approximate the novel combination of results achieved by the attachment, which is the subject matter of this patent application.
E) The prior art does not teach or anticipate an accessory or attachment that provides a means for making an inflatable significantly more seaworthy, when the attachment is connected to the inflatable.
F) The prior art does not teach or anticipate a simple attachment that increases the value added at a lower cost than alternative attachments, when the attachment is connected to the inflatable.
G) Compared to the invention which is the subject matter of this patent application, the prior art has been limited in scope, poorly constructed, limited in practical utility or technical, complex and expensive and for the most part, has failed to significantly increase the seaworthiness of inflatables with a single attachment.
A) This seaworthy attachment serves as a horizontal perimeter runway capable of significantly increasing the usable space and load capacity on inflatables while unexpectedly enhancing the overall handeling, balance and performance of an inflatable, when the attachment is connected to an inflatable.
B) This seaworthy attachment serves as a bridge shelter capable of significantly increasing the usable space on inflatables while unexpetedly enhancing the overall handeling, balance and performance of an inflatable, when the attachment is connected to the inflatable.
C) This seaworthy attachment results in a novel combination of desirable features of hardbody boats with desirable features of inflatables, when the attachment is connected to an inflatable.
D) This seaworthy attachment results in a suprising synergy (combined action/result) that cannot be achieved by a hardbody boat by itself or an inflatable boat by itself or by any other single attachment, when this attachment is connected to the inflatable.
E) This attachment provides a novel means for making an inflatable significantly more seaworthy, when the attachment is connected to the inflatable.
F) This simple attachment increases the value added at a lower cost than alternative attachments, when this attachment is connected to the inflatable. It creates a residual value and prolongs the life of the inflatable which are additional features that will contribute to its commercial success.
G) This seaworthy attachment has a broad practical utility, is well constructed and avoids the technical, the complex and the expenses of other possibly alternative attachments. These are features that will contribute to its commercial success.
Further objects and advantages of our invention will become apparent from a consideration of the drawings and ensuing description.